Maybe BRC would like a Xmas present, e.g.,

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/media/627359/general-motors-lt4-supercharged-62-liter-v-8-engine-photo-627909-s-986×603.jpg

that is, a 650-HP Corvette Z06 V-8
available as crate motor for $15,625.

More details at

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/11/06/650-hp-corvette-z06-v-8-available-as-crate-engine-previewed-in-170-camaro/

e.g., with

One of the coolest cars at
this week’s 2015 SEMA show was a custom
1970 Chevrolet Camaro RS. Built by
Chevrolet Performance, the classic muscle
car was fitted with a supercharged
6.2-liter LT4 V-8 just like the one in the
latest-generation Corvette Z06. But this
engine wasn’t lifted out of a Z06 donor.
Instead, it was a new crate engine
offering now available from Chevrolet
Performance.

In science we test our theories, and the best test is to make a prediction. E.g., use Newton’s second law and law of gravity to predict the motions of the planets, moons, comets, etc. E.g., predict eclipses. As we know well, the predictions work great. For more, the details of GPS — work great. For the Lagangian points and putting an observatory at one, work great.

Now for global warming, 10 or so years ago we had some predictions. Now we can check if the predictions were correct. Result? The predictions were wildly wrong, the predicted temperatures were nearly all way, Way too high compared with accurate measurements of temperatures now.

So, following settled science, what do we do? Keep arguing about pictures of polar bears, glaciers falling into the seas, ice patterns in the arctic, hurricane frequency, snow fall levels, droughts, floods, the snows on Kilimanjaro, pictures of retreating glaciers, etc.? Question motives? Nope.

Instead, it’s simple, dirt simple: Due to the false predictions, take the candidate science, drop it into the round, wet bowl, pull the chain, and just f’get about it. That’s the real version of settled science. So, done, over with, kaput, f’get about it. Scientifically, there’s nothing else to discuss. And if there’s no solid science, then little or nothing, better nothing, left to discuss.

Exactly.

.
Thank God it’s Friday?

Coffee speaking there.

Stay well, my friend.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

Well here is a little rhyme for you to remember.

“Monday, Thursday, Friday and coffee is the answer, Tuesday and Wednesday and may cause cancer. Saturdays fine, but only in mornings. On Sunday, just to be sure, check twitter for warnings.”

.
I lived for years in a coastal community and I am a water person. My undergrad thesis had to do with littoral drift and beach dune nourishment.

Much of what is conflated as rising water is, in reality, erosion.

For every eroded locality there is some place where the coast line is being accreted.

I do think that the level of the oceans is rising but the likelihood of it being the result of climate change? I am skeptical.

Not opposed, mind you. Just skeptical.

There are a lot of things that should be addressed — rising water, flooding, water retention, air pollution — that should be attacked regardless of whether they are part of some comprehensive system.

This is why the “whiner takes all” nature of the debate is so frustrating and unproductive. Much of this stuff should be addressed regardless of its cause.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

.
Scientists are held hostage to evidence (much like lawyers).

When the evidence is not compelling or is inconclusive, scientists derive theories as to what is happening or what has happened. They are bridging gaps. Gaps in evidence.

When the future is predicted based upon such evidence, then the future may not conform to those theories.

A classic example is the prediction that the arctic or antarctic ice or polar bears would behave in some predicted manner. [For the record, I have no dog in this fight either way and am not only skeptical, I am disinterested.]

The conclusions of scientists are no better than the quality of their evidence. Garbage in, garbage out.

In that regard, one is appropriately wary of the conclusions even of scientists.

I would take great issue that medicine is one of those scientific endeavors in which the “settled science” has not been very good and every day seems to be brought into more question.

I cannot remember whether coffee is good or bad for me today. Nonetheless, I have been drinking some this morning.

I have to run. I have an appointment to be bled by some leeches.

BRC
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

Indeed, one can be a Skeptic about the specifics of what got us here, but the facts remain true. For example, whether you are a skeptic, a denier, or a proponent/opponent of climate change, it is true that the seas are rising globally. That data shows it. People who live in seaside towns, like me, see it and it’s impact on the community and have noted it’s rise over the course of a lifetime. Some places have completely disappeared underwater and displaced whole communities (islands in the Pacific, places in Alaska, etc.)

If, like me, you are a person focused on solving problems, the key is to understand where all the players stand on the issue, and then get those people talking about how to solve the problem at hand, based on where they stand on any particular issue. Deniers of facts are the most problematic (you can show these people clear facts and they will still deny them, very frustrating). Skeptics are the best people to have on hand because they will often look at the many facets of different proposed solutions and offer input on pros and cons of each one. Skeptics tend to be unaffiliated and I like that because they are the ones who will most often think up the most interesting solutions.

Unfortunately I’m no scientist so I can’t validate any scientific findings, however scientists are very low on my list of people to be skeptical of.

Politicians and lobbyists, sure. CEO’s and blockchain nutjobs, sure. Scientists? Nah. It’s been a few hundred years since our “scientists” have been mostly wrong about stuff.

Most science doesn’t have proponents and opponents, it simply is what it is. The level of opposition to global warming science is only rivaled by the ant-evolution ground, and if I were a betting man, I’d had my chips to the folks in lab coats.